Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by Plan B

TLDR

Do the climate change Nazis have good news?
I'm feeling a bit cold right now. Is the planet still getting warmer?


What can I do to accelerate the warming?
I know every little helps.

Since your head is already buried in the sand, keep digging.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Still waiting for a response from where I trashed your defenition of polar ice cap

You didn't trash anything you blathering old fool. You are arguing over irrelevant semantics. You were trying to debunk a scientific article I posted and failed epically. The fact is that what you call the "polar ice cap" is part of the sea ice data in the article I posted.

Go back to your readers digest.

Strange how you work your way around the fact, the only thing I have questioned is you defenition of the polar ice cap by posting wicklepedia's defenition of polar ice cap yet you fail to address this as it conflicts with your defenition.

Snubbles: resident narsassistic

Peter The Climate alarmists have first hand information from the revered leader Obombo he should know he has been promised a $60 million kick back from Al Gores backers.

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

he has been promised a $60 million kick back from Al Gores backers

Link?

You keep forgetting the emoticons.

= humour

Memes are dumb

Broken dumb sources, stupid is

Whats climate change about Again.?

UN’s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ‘Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model’

(CNSNews.com) – The United Nations' top climate change official says the U.N.'s goal is to “intentionally transform the economic development model” in place “since the Industrial Revolution.”
“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history,” Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) said February 3rd during a press conference in Brussels.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.

“This will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change…It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation,” said Figueres, who said last year that Communist China, the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gas, is “doing it right” regarding climate change while calling the U.S. Congress “very detrimental” in the fight against global warming.

The UNFCCC is the parent treaty of the 2005 Kyoto Protocol, the world’s first legally binding emissions reduction treaty, which the U.S. Senate refused to ratify. According to UNFCCC’s website, “the ultimate objective of both treaties is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.”

To achieve that goal, $10.2 billion has been pledged by 27 developed nations as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to help Third World countries cope with the alleged effects of climate change, including a $3 billion pledge made by President Obama last November in what one official called a “game-changing moment.”

But that won’t be enough to prevent global temperatures from increasing 2 degrees Celsius by 2100, Figueres said, a prediction based on the U.N.’s now discredited computer climate models.

The twin objectives of the U.N.’s next major climate change conference, which will be held in Paris in December, are to raise at least $100 billion per year in NDCs from industrialized nations while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions to zero by the end of the century to stop global warming even though, according to satellite data, there has been no warming for more than 18 years.


Plenary session of the Geneva Climate Change Talks in February, 2015. (United Nations)
An 86-page draft negotiating text, which was released last Friday in Geneva, includes various options “to achieve [the UNFCCC’s] objective… to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [man-made] interference with the climate system.”

Developed countries have the “greatest responsibility to take the lead” in reducing their carbon emissions “without conditions,” the draft stated. Signatory nations will have “common but differentiated responsibilities” under the proposed treaty.

“Developed countries shall provide financial resources to developing country Parties for the full and enhanced implementation of the [Climate Change] Convention,” according to the draft proposal.

“The GCF [Green Climate Fund] shall be the main financial entity under the new agreement,” it added.

The GCF was founded as a mechanism to redistribute wealth from developed countries to poorer nations in order “to promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways.”

Developed countries should provide “at least 1 per cent of gross domestic product per year from 2020 and additional funds during the pre-2020 period to the GCF,” which would act as the “main operating entity of the Financial Mechanism” under the new treaty, according to the draft.

UN?s Top Climate Official: Goal Is To ?Intentionally Transform the Economic Development Model?

Oh so the tinfoiled moron posts up another right wing long debunked link. When are you nitwits going to smarten up and realize that you are posting the same debunked shit that is years old?

I have clowned this topic at least five or six times. Yet you buffoons keep reposting this.

Lets reiterate. It is the same repackaged articles that get reposted over and over and over and over.

Fucking morons.

Big oil shills. Yep if you listen to Alex Jones you are being dumbed down. He is in the pocket of the Koch brothers. Sorry tin foil brigade.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Oh so the tinfoiled moron posts up another right wing long debunked link. When are you nitwits going to smarten up and realize that you are posting the same debunked shit that is years old?

I have clowned this topic at least five or six times. Yet you buffoons keep reposting this.

Lets reiterate. It is the same repackaged articles that get reposted over and over and over and over.

Fucking morons.

Not moron necessarily. Could be, and most likely just home made propogandists who haven't gotten the skill thing down. Then again....

oops.

Australia PM's adviser says climate change a UN hoax

A top Australian government business adviser has said climate change is a hoax by the United Nations.
Most climate models were wrong and there was little evidence of climate change, said Maurice Newman.
He said the UN had used climate change as a "hook" to establish and control a new world order.
Mr Newman's comments were rejected by climate scientists, while Environment Minister Greg Hunt said it was "not something I would express".
Asked at a press conference what he thought of Mr Newman's comments, Mr Hunt said individuals were "entitled to their views".
On a per capita basis, Australia is one of the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases.
Coalition governments in Australia have a history of climate change scepticism. One of the current government's first actions when it won power in 2013 was to dump the previous Labor government's tax on carbon emissions because of the cost to industry.
The UN says there is a strong scientific consensus that the global climate is changing and that human activity contributes significantly to this trend.
Political agenda
Mr Newman chairs Prime Minister Tony Abbott's Business Advisory Council and is a former chairperson of the Australian Stock Exchange.
He wrote in an opinion article for The Australian newspaper on Friday: "It's a well-kept secret, but 95% of the climate models we are told prove the link between human CO2 emissions and catastrophic global warming have been found, after nearly two decades of temperature stasis, to be in error."
Coral in Australia's Great Barrier Reef
The Great Barrier Reef is at risk from rising ocean temperatures
Mr Newman said the public had been "subjected to extravagance from climate catastrophists for close to 50 years", and swallowed "dud predictions" from weather bureaus who presented "homogenised" data to suit narratives.
He also said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which reviews and assesses scientific work relevant to climate change for the UN, had been exposed "repeatedly for [at]mis[at]rep[at]resentation and shoddy methods".
The UN, he said, was spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on "futile climate change policies".
"The real agenda is concentrated political authority," he said. "Global warming is the hook."
Mr Newman, who is also a former chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, said the executive secretary of the UN's Framework on Climate Change, Christiana Figueres, was using climate change to oppose capitalism.
"This is not about facts or logic. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN. It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective."
Ms Figueres was in Australia this week and addressed a climate [at]summit in Melbourne on Wednesday.
Climate change expert Professor David Karoly from the University of Melbourne, said Mr Newman's comments did not represent any peer reviewed study or assessment of climate change.
"It is clear he has deliberately tried to mislead the Australian public," said Professor Karoly, who is considering making a complaint to the Australian Press Council about the article.
He said the government's decision to appoint Mr Newman to its business advisory council was akin to Qantas having a chairman that believed the earth was flat.
Australia PM's adviser says climate change a UN hoax - BBC News

There Is No Global Warming

The liberal media machine has spent decades bulldozing anyone who tells you global warming is a sham.

They even came up with a clever little title — “deniers.”

Every time a heat wave hits, every time a picture of a lone polar bear gets taken . . . the left pounds the table for environmental reform, more policy, more money to combat climate change. But how much has the world really warmed?

Their message is simple: Get on the man-made global warming bandwagon . . . or you’re just ignorant.

But how much has the world really warmed?

It’s an important question, considering the U.S. government spends $22 billion a year to fight the global warming crisis (twice as much as it spends protecting our border).

To put that in perspective, that is $41,856 every minute going to global warming initiatives.

But that's just the tip of a gargantuan iceberg.

According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell, the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.

That's three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.

So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?

Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.

According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

Hardly anything to panic about; however, that does mean the world is warmer, right?

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we’ve actually had temperatures DROPPING!

As can be seen in this chart, we haven’t seen any global warming for 17 years.

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

This is quite the opposite of what the global warming faction warned us.

In 2007, while accepting his Nobel Prize for his global warming initiative, Al Gore made this striking prediction, “The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.”

Al Gore could not have been more wrong.

However, despite this clear evidence that the temperatures are not increasing, the global warming hysteria only seems to be increasing.

For example: President Obama himself tweeted on May 16, 2014: “97% of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” John Kerry, Al Gore, and a host of others have championed this statistic.

Since then, it has become clear that this statistic was inaccurate.

The Wall Street Journal went as far as to say, “The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.” Forbes headlined “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97% Consensus’ Claims.”

Come to find out, the study President Obama was citing was botched from the start.

A host of other problems for the global warming crowd are emerging, such as . . .

Leaked emails from global warming scientists state that the Earth is not warming, such as this one from Kevin Trenberth that states, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty we can’t.”
Claude Allegre, the founding father of the man-made global warming ethos, recently renounced his position that man has caused warming.
Proof is emerging that Al Gore and even President Obama have financially benefited from fueling the global warming hysteria (click here for an internal report on this).

It is becoming harder and harder for the global warming community to ignore some of the scientific data that show the Earth is not getting warmer . . . instead, the world is getting cooler.

Which makes one wonder — why are we still spending $22 billion a year on global warming initiatives, and where is the money going? (Click Here to Read a Controversial Report on This Topic.)

Suggested Reading for You: A former White House adviser and NASA consultant reveals startling proof that the global warming faction is hiding the truth . . . and gets attacked. Click Here.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com New Report: There is No Global Warming
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Originally Posted by Horatio Hornblower

The liberal media machine

article fail

Baldrich do all you posts only ever have three syllables.?

of the fact that right when we’re perfectly equipped with the tools to receive and disseminate information, our messages are criss-crossed to the point of not making sense, so that hype overtakes fact and exaggeration overrides genuine sentiment.

it was a good book

Another global warming catastrophe: the Sahara Desert is getting greener

IT appears that the Sahara desert may actually be shrinking.

A few thousand years ago, a mighty river flowed through the Sahara across what is today Sudan. The Wadi Howar—now just a dried-out riverbed for most of the year—sustained not just fish, crocodiles, and hippopotamuses, but also agriculture and human settlement. As late as 1,000 B.C., a powerful fortress stood on its shores. But then the Sahara dried out, turning from a green savannah into an inhospitable desert. The culprit: climate change. According to desert geologist Stefan Kröpelin, who has studied geological data for the eastern Sahara going back 6,000 years, the desert spread as temperatures dropped. Global cooling meant that the air had less capacity to hold moisture from the oceans, leading to fewer rains and more arid climes.

Now, that same process is happening in reverse. As temperatures rise, the Sahara and other dry areas are greening on the edges. “I’ve been studying the Sahara for 30 years and can definitely say that it’s getting greener,” says Kröpelin, who specializes in desert archaeology and climate history at the University of Cologne. Where there used to be nothing but desert, he says, there is now not just grass but shrubs and acacia trees–and he has the photos from 30 years of extensive field study to prove it. “The nomads are taking their camels to graze in areas where they’ve never been able to graze before.” Satellite data showing more green on the southern edge of the Sahara also bear him out. “There are always winners and losers if weather patterns change,” he says. “But as a general rule, warmer temperatures inevitably mean that the air picks up more moisture from the oceans, which will lead to more rainfall. If you look at the geological records in the Sahara, there have been repeated periods where the Sahara was greener when temperatures were warmer than today.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...s-greener.html

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Another global warming catastrophe: the Sahara Desert is getting greener

IT appears that the Sahara desert may actually be shrinking.

A few thousand years ago, a mighty river flowed through the Sahara across what is today Sudan. The Wadi Howar—now just a dried-out riverbed for most of the year—sustained not just fish, crocodiles, and hippopotamuses, but also agriculture and human settlement. As late as 1,000 B.C., a powerful fortress stood on its shores. But then the Sahara dried out, turning from a green savannah into an inhospitable desert. The culprit: climate change. According to desert geologist Stefan Kröpelin, who has studied geological data for the eastern Sahara going back 6,000 years, the desert spread as temperatures dropped. Global cooling meant that the air had less capacity to hold moisture from the oceans, leading to fewer rains and more arid climes.

Now, that same process is happening in reverse. As temperatures rise, the Sahara and other dry areas are greening on the edges. “I’ve been studying the Sahara for 30 years and can definitely say that it’s getting greener,” says Kröpelin, who specializes in desert archaeology and climate history at the University of Cologne. Where there used to be nothing but desert, he says, there is now not just grass but shrubs and acacia trees–and he has the photos from 30 years of extensive field study to prove it. “The nomads are taking their camels to graze in areas where they’ve never been able to graze before.” Satellite data showing more green on the southern edge of the Sahara also bear him out. “There are always winners and losers if weather patterns change,” he says. “But as a general rule, warmer temperatures inevitably mean that the air picks up more moisture from the oceans, which will lead to more rainfall. If you look at the geological records in the Sahara, there have been repeated periods where the Sahara was greener when temperatures were warmer than today.”

Climate Change Is Making Deserts Greener - The Daily Beast

I wish you could decide what you want to believe. One day you deny change. The next day you post some change data you like.

Out and out lies from deniers for hire (Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and William Briggs)

Research downplaying impending global warming is overturned

A new study finds Monckton et al. (2015) riddled with errors

A new paper just published in Science Bulletin by Mark Richardson, Zeke Hausfather, Dana Nuccitelli, Ken Rice, and John Abraham shows that mainstream climate models simulate global temperature observations much better than the “irreducibly simple climate model” of Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and William Briggs.

When the Monckton paper was published in the Chinese journal Science Bulletinthis January, it was covered by conservative media outlets like the Daily Mail, Breitbart and World Net Daily, which used it to manufacture doubt about the dangers associated with human-caused global warming. The ideologically-appealing but scientifically incorrect message from the paper was essentially, ‘climate models are running hot, the climate is insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect, and thus future global warming will be minimal and nothing to worry about.’

snip

Second, based on that first assumption of a stable climate, their paper claimed “warming is already at equilibrium” and the Earth’s response to an energy imbalance is instantaneous. However, this is obviously wrong because satellites measure a large ongoing global energy imbalance, with a tremendous amount of heat building up in the oceans. As John Abraham explains,

The model of Monckton and his colleagues is fatally flawed in that it assumes the Earth responds instantly to changes in heat. We know this isn’t true. The Earth has what’s called thermal inertia. Just like it takes a while for a pot of water to boil, or a Thanksgiving turkey to heat up, the Earth takes a while to absorb heat. If you ignore that, you will be way off in your results.

Snip

Comparison between modelled and observed temperature change (°C) from 1850. Solid lines show observational series HadCRUT4, Berkeley Earth (BEST) and Cowtan and Way. The 5%–95% CMIP5 range and Monckton et al. range are shown as shaded areas. N = 45 CMIP5 models transitioning to RCP6.0 after 2005, M15 model forced with the Otto et al. radiative forcing time series and all temperature series anomalies calculated relative to the 1850–1900 mean. Source: Science Bulletin; Richardson et al. (2015).

Ultimately our paper concludes as follows,

The M15 [Monckton et al. (2015)] model performs poorly against observations because its parameters were selected using a logically flawed narrative, rather than physical and mathematical analysis. Observational evidence from palaeoclimate and of ocean heat content measurements directly contradict the values adopted by M15, but are not acknowledged.

Partial use and misinterpretation of the relevant literature may explain many of the differences between statements in M15 and the results of other studies. The authors of M15 cite some studies supporting their estimate of lower climate response, but miss much of the larger body of research that contradicts the claims in M15 …

Their low estimates of future warming are due to assumptions developed using a logically flawed justification narrative rather than physical analysis. The key conclusions are directly contradicted by observations and cannot be considered credible.

This is where it's going, man...

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse Implies That Those With Doubts About Global Warming Should Be Imprisoned

Fossil fuel companies and their allies are funding a massive and sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people about the environmental harm caused by carbon pollution.

Their activities are often compared to those of Big Tobacco denying the health dangers of smoking. Big Tobacco’s denial scheme was ultimately found by a federal judge to have amounted to a racketeering enterprise. …

The parallels between what the tobacco industry did and what the fossil fuel industry is doing now are striking.

The fossil-fuel industry?s campaign to mislead the American people - The Washington Post

This guy is suggesting that those who dispute his position that harmless CO2 emissions are causing a climate crisis should be imprisoned on racketeering charges?

^ Nowhere in the article does he mention that they should be imprisoned. Once again you are not reading the articles you post. He referred to the civil charges filed against big tobacco for deliberately falsifying data and lying.

Poor merchants of doubt,…….. pop goes your fucking balloon

June 4, 2015

A new study published online today in the journal Science finds that the rate of global warming during the last 15 years has been as fast as or faster than that seen during the latter half of the 20th Century. The study refutes the notion that there has been a slowdown or "hiatus" in the rate of global warming in recent years.

The study is the work of a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Centers for Environmental Information* (NCEI) using the latest global surface temperature data.

"Adding in the last two years of global surface temperature data and other improvements in the quality of the observed record provide evidence that contradict the notion of a hiatus in recent global warming trends," said Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D., Director, NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information. "Our new analysis suggests that the apparent hiatus may have been largely the result of limitations in past datasets, and that the rate of warming over the first 15 years of this century has, in fact, been as fast or faster than that seen over the last half of the 20th century."

Obama Regime Scientists Fiddle With Climate Data To Erase The 15 Yr Global Warming Hiatus

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year “pause” in global warming: They “adjusted” the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.

New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,'” wrote NOAA scientists in their study presenting newly adjusted climate data.

To increase the rate in warming, NOAA scientists put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays, adjusted ship-based temperature readings upward, and slightly raised land-based temperatures as well. Scientists said adjusted ship-based temperature data “had the largest impact on trends for the 2000-2014 time period, accounting for 0.030°C of the 0.064°C trend difference.” They added that the “buoy offset correction contributed 0.014°C… to the difference, and the additional weight given to the buoys because of their greater accuracy contributed 0.012°C.”

NOAA says for the years 1998 to 2012, the “new analysis exhibits more than twice as much warming as the old analysis at the global scale,” at 0.086 degrees Celsius per decade compared to 0.039 degrees per decade.

“This is clearly attributable to the new [Sea Surface Temperature] analysis, which itself has much higher trends,” scientists noted in their study. “In contrast, trends in the new [land surface temperature] analysis are only slightly higher.”

Global surface temperature data shows a lack of statistically significant warming over the last 15 years — a development that has baffled climate scientists. Dozens of explanations have been offered to explain the hiatus in warming, but those theories may be rendered moot by NOOA’s new study.

NOAA’s study, however, notes the overall warming trend since 1880 has not been significantly changed. What’s increased is the warming trend in recent decades.

“Our new analysis now shows the trend over the period 1950-1999, a time widely agreed as having significant anthropogenic global warming, is 0.113 [degrees Celsius per decade], which is virtually indistinguishable with the trend over the period 2000-2014″ of 0.116 degrees per decade, according to the study.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “statement of two years ago — that the global surface temperature has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than over the past 30 to 60 years’ — is no longer valid,” the study claims.

But that’s not all NOAA did to increase the warming trend in recent decades. Climate expert Bob Tisdale and meteorologist Anthony Watts noted that to “manufacture warming during the hiatus, NOAA adjusted the pre-hiatus data downward.”

“If we subtract the [old] data from the [new] data… we can see that that is exactly what NOAA did,” Tisdale and Watts wrote on the science blog Watts Up With That.

“It’s the same story all over again; the adjustments go towards cooling the past and thus increasing the slope of temperature rise,” Tisdale and Watts added. “Their intent and methods are so obvious they’re laughable.”

NOAA Tampers With Data To Erase The Global Warming 'Hiatus' | The Daily Caller

Scamsters gonna scam. Haven't heard from Guru Al Gore for a while?